• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

French presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon wants 100% tax on top salaries

Status
Not open for further replies.

Evlar

Banned
If you have the connections to make $300,000, you probably don't have to worry about starving.

There is many problems with this I think, especially new earners trying to compete with old wealth. . . I still would like to see this enacted, just to see what would happen. I also don't care because I live across the world from it.

This, actually, is the best starting point for a criticism of the idea in isolation from any other reforms. If you're going to strike the accumulation of new fortunes you must also address the stockpiled existing fortunes, or risk permanent social immobility, particularly if the "investment class" escapes the 300k cap by the distinction between salary income and investment income.
Depends if you wish to follow equality or equity. Nevertheless, economic incentives set by the market are as free and fair as any vote.
Another shockingly elitist sentiment. Democracies are associations of people, not property.
 

sphagnum

Banned
Jeff Bezos's pay is determined by the Board of Amazon which is elected by the shareholders of Amazon. They view the value of his contribution is greater than the value of its other employees because those employees are compensated in-line with the average wage that they'd be paid elsewhere (or else they'd work elsewhere). Bezos is not commoditized labour as his strategy, salesmanship and vision is unique, and valued atleast by the owners of Amazon (of which Bezos is a significant one).

That's nice, except the owners of Amazon are a bunch of parasites who don't actually create the products that keep the company running and are obsessed with an irrational quest for ever more profit. Let's give control to those who actually do the work.
 

Angry Fork

Member
The difference is Jeff Bezos is a genius, innovator and great salesman for the company. He is the final decision maker on every move it has made including its long-term successful strategy. A factory packer is commoditized labour and easily replaceable. He is rewarded in excess because his risk was in excess.

Similarly, the company already has substantial incentive to invest in robotics to replace workers. It's just when they do that you will undoubtedly view it as the capitalist hoarding excess value and impoverishing workers as Marx did.

That easily replaceable labor is a human being though. He/she shouldn't be regarded as a tool, they have their own ambitions and emotions and they work assembly line jobs because they have no other choice. Jeff Bezos cannot survive without their labor, but they can maintain the company without him if they wanted to. They would have to learn what he has learned, but if he can do it so can they. But he cannot produce what all of them produce together. This guy is worth 18 billion$+. There is no possible way you can justify that much stealing of other people's labor.

The wealth gap is so monstrous and no person no matter how 'unique' (debatable) should be granted that much money. That goes for every millionaire/billionaire in general. Imagine if all that money was given to the state so that the poor can survive/flourish and everyone's standard of living raised? How is that not humanitarian and just? And not only to them but to NASA, investments in green technology, robotics, better roads and cars etc. things that can help everyone.
 

Acheron

Banned
That's nice, except the owners of Amazon are a bunch of parasites who don't actually create the products that keep the company running and are obsessed with an irrational quest for ever more profit. Let's give control to those who actually do the work.

Profit for Amazon means value. It creates value either by becoming more efficient (reducing costs for similar performance) or creating more value for customers in the form of lower price, greater convenience etc. (higher revenue). Either way the economy benefits from increased customer value or higher efficiency.

For example Amazon has reduced the need for young people to work in retail stores and freed them for more productive enterprise.

Profit for Amazon atleast is synonymous with economic contribution. Amazon then reinvests profit or if it desires redistributes to owners who then can invest gains elsewhere. At no point is the pursuit of profit bad for anyone in Amazon.
 
I don't care how brilliant Jeff Bezos may be, without actual labor he is nothing. He does not build Kindles. He runs a company that builds Kindles. He deserves to be paid the amount that an administrator should be paid, not the amount that a king should be paid, and that amount deserves to be determined by the people who actually do the work - the workers.

Also, robots replacing workers would be fantastic so long as the robots aren't controlled by private interests. Private interests will only use them to further profit for themselves, leaving the now-unemployed to starve in the streets while the rich convince politicians to cut the social services that keep the poors alive because "MY TAX DOLLARS". This is why the economy needs to be democratically run.

Yea, I really don't see why Beezos needs to make more than 300k per year. Or why he'd quit his job because of a salary cap.

Depends if you wish to follow equality or equity. Nevertheless, economic incentives set by the market are as free and fair as any vote.

I hope you didn't type this with a straight face.
 

Acheron

Banned
That easily replaceable labor is a human being though. He/she shouldn't be regarded as a tool, they have their own ambitions and emotions and they work assembly line jobs because they have no other choice. Jeff Bezos cannot survive without their labor, but they can maintain the company without him if they wanted to. They would have to learn what he has learned, but if he can do it so can they. But he cannot produce what all of them produce together. This guy is worth 18 billion$+. There is no possible way you can justify that much stealing of other people's labor.

The wealth gap is so monstrous and no person no matter how 'unique' (debatable) should be granted that much money. That goes for every millionaire/billionaire in general. Imagine if all that money was given to the state so that the poor can survive/flourish and everyone's standard of living raised? How is that not humanitarian and just? And not only to them but to NASA, investments in green technology, robotics, better roads and cars etc. things that can help everyone.

So you don't want people working in Amazon's warehouses, but you don't want them not working there either.

Look around. The free market has been a part of green technology, robotics, transport, cars etc. We all want the same thing, it's just the way I'm advocating has lead humanity to its brightest, most equitable, healthiest, smartest and most prosperous point ever and continue to grow.

The socialist system has produced economic failures that languish behind market economies and every worthwhile socialist nation has switched over.

Of course people want taxes, a social safety net of some sort, medicare (one of the few areas where the market doesn't work). But in the main economic incentives and prices are best set by the market.
 
Look around. The free market has been a part of green technology, robotics, transport, cars etc. We all want the same thing, it's just the way I'm advocating has lead humanity to its brightest, most equitable, healthiest, smartest and most prosperous point ever and continue to grow.

You could make the same argument for feudalism. And slavery. It's a very, very bad argument that amounts to pointing to the ground and saying, we're here now. It shouldn't be surprising that we are at our most prosperous point ever. That an economic system continues to allow humans to produce wealth does not make it ideal, or even good. It makes it better than a system that destroys wealth. Which capitalism may well eventually get to doing.

The socialist system has produced economic failures that languish behind market economies and every worthwhile socialist nation has switched over.

This isn't actually true. Russia went from a feudal society at the time the US was already an industrialized country to competing with the US in space exploration just a few decades later.
 

Acheron

Banned
You could make the same argument for feudalism. And slavery. It's a very, very bad argument that amounts to pointing to the ground and saying, we're here now. It shouldn't be surprising that we are at our most prosperous point ever. That an economic system continues to allow humans to produce wealth does not make it ideal, or even good. It makes it better than a system that destroys wealth. Which capitalism may well eventually get to doing.

As a Marxist you should know feudalism was exceeded by capitalism in performance. Just as slavery is not economically viable.

My aim is not to say capitalism is always an forever, but to state socialist experiments such as this have a long record of failure and in theory lack the means to encourage innovation or even long-term solve the problems stated. Barring of course a unseen level of societal change in terms of motivations.
 

Acheron

Banned
This isn't actually true. Russia went from a feudal society at the time the US was already an industrialized country to competing with the US in space exploration just a few decades later.

Those gains were not from socialism per se, rather superior (but still suboptimal) resource allocation. Nevertheless while the USSR competed with the USA in heavy industry its quality of life lagged far, far behind the West. Your statement only succeeds by 1) ignoring the sectors that Soviet planners did and 2) ignoring the long-run issues of such investment.
 

Angry Fork

Member
So you don't want people working in Amazon's warehouses, but you don't want them not working there either.

Look around. The free market has been a part of green technology, robotics, transport, cars etc. We all want the same thing, it's just the way I'm advocating has lead humanity to its brightest, most equitable, healthiest, smartest and most prosperous point ever and continue to grow.

The socialist system has produced economic failures that languish behind market economies and every worthwhile socialist nation has switched over.

I want robots doing menial labor and everyone else doing what they want. And if we're so productive then why does NASA, green/nuclear tech, robotics etc. all keep getting funding cuts? If the free market cared about everyone then things would be much better for all but they aren't.

The gap between poor and rich is getting much worse and the only benefits the poor see are the ones that eventually manage to trickle down to them while the top hoard the rest. America has gotten where it has so fast because it's been able to exploit the lower class with impunity for much of it's existence. And now they can't do it here so they do it in China where there are no regulations. (Although it's still done here in different ways)
 
As a Marxist you should know feudalism was exceeded by capitalism in performance. Just as slavery is not economically viable.

You have missed the point. Each mode of production represented humanity's high point of economic productivity at the time. Your argument pointing to capitalism's current "bounty" as having "lead humanity to its brightest, most equitable, healthiest, smartest and most prosperous point ever" was equally available to the lord to justify the value of feudalism to his serfs. It didn't make any of those economic systems worthy of defending as just economic systems. In short, your argument has no substance. It's the equivalent of saying, "this is where we are now."

Those gains were not from socialism per se, rather superior (but still suboptimal) resource allocation. Nevertheless while the USSR competed with the USA in heavy industry its quality of life lagged far, far behind the West. Your statement only succeeds by 1) ignoring the sectors that Soviet planners did and 2) ignoring the long-run issues of such investment.

Of course Russia was poorer than the US. Why wouldn't it be? It was still an agrarian, feudal economy in the early 20th century! You seem to think that economic productivity has no relationship to history at all. That a country like, say, Nigeria, could become as rich as the US in ten years if it just implemented the right policy.

That's not how things work in the real world. And I find interesting your assertion that "resource allocation" is not socialism in light of your prior comments that socialism is, basically, resource allocation by vote.
 
My aim is not to say capitalism is always an forever, but to state socialist experiments such as this have a long record of failure and in theory lack the means to encourage innovation or even long-term solve the problems stated. Barring of course a unseen level of societal change in terms of motivations.

Most western democracies have socialist programs. Melenchon seems to be advocating a mixed economy, which France and the U.S. already have. He is simply adding reforms to further address income inequality.
 

Acheron

Banned
I want robots doing menial labor and everyone else doing what they want. And if we're so productive then why does NASA, green/nuclear tech, robotics etc. all keep getting funding cuts? If the free market cared about everyone then things would be much better for all but they aren't.

The gap between poor and rich is getting much worse and the only benefits the poor see are the ones that eventually manage to trickle down to them while the top hoard the rest. America has gotten where it has so fast because it's been able to exploit the lower class with impunity for much of it's existence. And now they can't do it here so they do it in China where there are no regulations.

Robotics sure isn't getting funding cuts. Private satellite systems and space-based applications aren't getting funding cuts. Viable green technologies aren't getting funding cuts. What are getting funding cuts are government programs that don't make viable economic projects. There is a place for government R&D and overwhelmingly this place is during times of budget surplus.

As for equality, the gap is getting worse compared to the unique post-war era that ended due to massive stagnation and inflation. Who's to say the 1960s represent what the economic make-up of the West is and always should be? So long as people do better, and routes to success exist from the poor to the rich then inequality gaps are less a concern.

I'm not a libertarian nor do I support no, or flat, taxation. However, capping earnings, government controlled macro-investment decisions, price setting are not ideal ways to create wealth.
 

jp_zer0

Banned
This isn't actually true. Russia went from a feudal society at the time the US was already an industrialized country to competing with the US in space exploration just a few decades later.

This is a fantastic argument, because it really details the non systematic nature of "pure" socialism. The Russian and United States government could compete with each other in the space race with government programs, outside of the free market system. It is true that the government can arbitrate the free market and beat it in places it normally cannot reach. Stimulus can avoid some troubled times in depression and a government can fund a space race because free market individuals might not find it profitable.

However, as quickly as you mentioned the Soviet Union grew into "prosperity" (while ignoring the economic hardships of the Russian people) into a leader of the space race, the Soviet Union also quickly spiraled into collapse and nothingness in 1990.

The free market can be slow, and archaic, but it is also the most open, democratic and stable of the current economic systems.

I'm also very sure the impoverished Russians never voted to be a leader in the space race.
 

Acheron

Banned
You have missed the point. Each mode of production represented humanity's high point of economic productivity at the time. Your argument pointing to capitalism's current "bounty" as having "lead humanity to its brightest, most equitable, healthiest, smartest and most prosperous point ever" was equally available to the lord to justify the value of feudalism to his serfs. It didn't make any of those economic systems worthy of defending as just economic systems. In short, your argument has no substance. It's the equivalent of saying, "this is where we are now."

Rather you missed the point. Capitalism was supposed to be exceeded by socialism. It wasn't by any means. Aspects of government intervention can (and should) be grafted onto capitalism, but as a whole the market remains the ideal mechanism for the economy to function through.

The argument was meant to be comparative, since there is a comparison therein.
 
This isn't actually true. Russia went from a feudal society at the time the US was already an industrialized country to competing with the US in space exploration just a few decades later.

Well yeah. Much thanks to a duder who turned a nation of 100 million into a literal slave state and ended up killing at least around a tenth of the population.

Those gains were not from socialism per se, rather superior (but still suboptimal) resource allocation.
What!?
 

Angry Fork

Member
Robotics sure isn't getting funding cuts. Private satellite systems and space-based applications aren't getting funding cuts. Viable green technologies aren't getting funding cuts. What are getting funding cuts are government programs that don't make viable economic projects. There is a place for government R&D and overwhelmingly this place is during times of budget surplus.

As for equality, the gap is getting worse compared to the unique post-war era that ended due to massive stagnation and inflation. Who's to say the 1960s represent what the economic make-up of the West is and always should be? So long as people do better, and routes to success exist from the poor to the rich then inequality gaps are less a concern.

I'm not a libertarian nor do I support no, or flat, taxation. However, capping earnings, government controlled macro-investment decisions, price setting are not ideal ways to create wealth.

Viable to who though? It seems if something benefits the upper class (or the military) it's okay and everything else gets sidelined. Anything deemed to be unimportant despite some of them (NASA) being of utmost importance to humanity in general. It seems most of the tech stuff that hasn't been cut are used for military purposes rather than the benefit of all. And the republicans seem to be getting worse every year when it comes to wanting to drill more and more instead of invest in nuclear/wind farm tech. They're unwilling to spend more now so we can save later.

As for routes from poor to rich, I'm fundamentally against the idea of wealth being the main motivator for success because of how exploitative/damaging it is. Then people will just con each other and do whatever is necessary to become rich. If the idea of being 'rich' goes away then so does the idea of being poor and there can be a system where everyone is the same class. And it wouldn't be a class of poverty or suffering but a middle class where everyone can be comfortable and have time to develop their own ideas/interests. Even if this means it takes longer to develop than a capitalist society I'm in favor of it because everyone being able to survive and be happy matters more to me than how much better the screen is in the next ipad. There can be a balance and socialism doesn't mean everything has to remain stagnant and nothing gets done.
 
Rather you missed the point. Capitalism was supposed to be exceeded by socialism. It wasn't by any means.

Capitalism is still in its infancy. Socialism is inevitable. You have a narrow view of history and the future. What do you think will happen when pay for labor equalizes globally?

jp_zer0 said:
However, as quickly as you mentioned the Soviet Union grew into "prosperity" (while ignoring the economic hardships of the Russian people)

Who is ignoring what?

aTZDY.gif


"Indeed, the prevailing view in Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Hungary is that people were better off economically under communism. Only in the Czech Republic and Poland do pluralities believe that most people are now better off. Furthermore, the consensus in many of these countries is that ordinary people have benefited far less than have business owners and politicians."

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1396/european-opinion-two-decades-after-berlin-wall-fall-communism

8NydS.jpg


"Under President Putin, the Kremlin has re-established its control over Russia's energy industry. Despite the outcry such measures have generated abroad, Russian public support for them is very strong. His re-nationalization of the oil and gas companies is especially popular: 85 percent of Russians favor the policy (56% "definitely"). Only seven percent oppose it. Moreover, most Russians (65%) say they would definitely (34%) or probably (31%) favor the "nationalization of other industries that are presently in private hands." Only a quarter (23%) say they would oppose such measures."

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/breuropera/224.php?lb=breu&pnt=224&nid=&id=

Sometimes its helpful to turn to the facts. (And why do you have the word "prosperity" in quotes as if I said that?)
 
Didn't Japan take a giant leap from being a feudal society to a developed society due to Capitalism in a much shorter time than any of the Communist countries?

"Under President Putin, the Kremlin has re-established its control over Russia's energy industry. Despite the outcry such measures have generated abroad, Russian public support for them is very strong. His re-nationalization of the oil and gas companies is especially popular: 85 percent of Russians favor the policy (56% "definitely"). Only seven percent oppose it. Moreover, most Russians (65%) say they would definitely (34%) or probably (31%) favor the "nationalization of other industries that are presently in private hands." Only a quarter (23%) say they would oppose such measures."

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/breuropera/224.php?lb=breu&pnt=224&nid=&id=

How did that work out?
 

Walshicus

Member
To put this in perspective here (England) the government just scrapped a 50% rate of tax for earnings of over £150k per year. This is because the people earning that and the companies paying it found loopholes so they didn't have to pay it. This arguably resulted in the government getting less as a result of the higher tax rate. There was also the fear that the people earning that kind of money would just leave the country because of it.




Edit: would prefer to see higher inheritance taxes though, as a tool to counter wealth accumulation.
I suppose we'll welcome all the rich French guys if this nut ever got voted in.

No, the government scrapped the 50% rate because its main component, the Tories, is a party which by design is a tool of the rich to get richer. If revenues were a concern, the loopholes and special deals for Vodaphone etc. would have been closed by themselves.
 

Acheron

Banned
Didn't Japan take a giant leap from being a feudal society to a developed society due to Capitalism in a much shorter time than any of the Communist countries?

South Korea, Taiwan and Japan all grew faster than any socialist nations during the past century.


The tsars and feudal landlords spectacularly misallocated Russia's labour and capital. The communists did do better but the decisions were suboptimal in that performance gains were made in spectacular fashion within few sectors while large swaths of the economy remained underfunded. As the Asian examples go, the market was able to allocate the move from subsistence agriculture to industrialization better.
 
South Korea, Taiwan and Japan all grew faster than any socialist nations during the past century.

Yep. The "Asian Miracle".

What's the best Communist miracle we have? Russia (due to mass slavery) and... maybe China? But there was that greatest famine in world history thing...
 

WARCOCK

Banned
Dude is a badass, i applaud the gesture despite its lack of feasibility. Also LOL at the the people in this thread comparing melanchon to the brand of crazy that is bred in the US political system. It's one thing to discard this idea as inane and unrealistic given one's personal conception of human nature and economics, but to not be able to grasp the nobility of intent of such an idea and compare it to the discourse that comes from the very far right here due to its relative distance from the center... is quite gross.
 

Slavik81

Member
Almost any idea proposed in politics is 'noble' if you ignore its negative consequences and judge it only by its primary intent. That's an astoundingly low bar you're setting.
 

WARCOCK

Banned
Almost any idea proposed in politics is 'noble' if you ignore its negative consequences and judge it only by its primary intent. That's an astoundingly low bar you're setting.

Unlike you i don't possess a crystal ball to provide certainty to my consequentialist assumptions upon judging the morality of a political statement. One thing though that is clear to me is that, at face value, vying for some absurd amount of income equality through taxes with the objective of redistributing that wealth sounds a whole lot more "noble" than anything that has come out of romney's mouth of late. Again i clearly stated this is not efficacious and silly, but there is a certain charm and well-intentioned quality to the claim that I recognize.
 
Jean-Luc Mélenchon is the French Newt Gingrich

photo.jpg


It seems America has finally discovered its allergy to a certain type of political nut.

As Mitt Romney’s painfully slow but ultimately unwavering journey to the Republican presidential nomination reaches its apogee, Gingrich’s campaign is effectively done, dusted and finissimo. The great nut of American party politics is no more. Amen to that.

Now, the election will be about two mainly mainstream candidates, with no radicals such as Gingrich. The same – however – cannot be said for France’s presidential election.

Few outside France will know of Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Fewer still have heard of his party “Front de gauche” (left front), or his electoral policies. So, let me offer some insight: Mélenchon is possibly the most economically deranged and politically dangerous of any French presidential candidates. Indeed, if you thought Gingrich was politically mad, bad, and dangerous to know, then Mélenchon is a hundred times worse.

Essentially, Mélenchon, is a 62 year-old radical left firebrand. He manages to differentiate himself from the rest of the candidates by marrying the sublime and the ridiculous, with vacuous and economically suicidal policies.

He says he will remove France from NATO and the EU. Then he promises to not cut any public spending, but actually increase it exponentially. He promised that he will increase the already generous social structures in France, at a cost to be borne by future taxes. He specifically outlines comprehensive nationalization of banks; collectives of workers owning all businesses in France; and a personal income cap of 360,000 euros (all income above this would be taxed at 100%). It’s enough to make most seasoned economists choke on their cornflakes several times over.

One would therefore expect Mélenchon to be trailing in the polls, ignored by the media as a crypto-Marxist and spurned by the electorate in search of serious solutions. After all, no serious politician — even in Europe — can believe that the answer to economic problems, is widespread nationalization, income caps and unfettered state spending?

Au contraire. Mélenchon is actually polling in third-place and his rallies are packed with supporters. He may even hold the key to François Hollande’s election victory, drawing away supporters from the Socialist Party, thereby handing the Elysée to Nicolas Sarkozy.

Mélenchon’s success lies partly in his fiery rhetoric and slick presentation, but it’s also more than that. Last week, The Economist ran a feature on France, arguing no politician was seeking to address the monumental economic iceberg the country is headed towards. There must be serious cuts in public spending if France is to avoid a fate such as Greece’s — but no candidate in this election has sought to address this. It has largely been a silent issue in a very vocal campaign.

Into this vacuum sauntered Mélenchon, who has now defined himself as the alternative economic guru. He tells the French that not only can they keep their economic croissant, but they can eat, enjoy and relax with it on a nice terrace overlooking a picturesque vista. The lure is too much for some segments of France’s electorate, largely disenchanted with the political mainstream. They believe steadfastly in his ersatz vision.

So, whereas Gingrich is isolated, with very little influence over anything beyond what he orders for breakfast every morning; Mélenchon – France’s Gingrich – stands on the cusp of being instrumental in an election that has strayed beyond the realms of reality into a phenomenal farce.

It has yet to be seen whether Mélenchon will have any effect over the outcome of the election — with less than two weeks to go until polling day, many French people have yet to make up their minds. However, it may be that in a few months France will rue not having that very American allergy to a very particular kind of political nut.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/6713/jean-luc-melenchon-is-the-french-newt-gingrich/category_list

Communists v Socialists
The Mélenchon conundrum

The Economist - Apr 10th 2012, 9:22 by S.P. | PARIS

The received wisdom in Paris is that Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s remarkable campaign is bad news for François Hollande. As Mr Mélenchon has surged ahead in the polls, and into third place in the first round, Mr Hollande’s numbers have dropped back. But I wonder if this is right. Could Mr Mélenchon’s dazzling performance actually be helpful for Mr Hollande?

At first glance, this seems absurd. Mr Mélenchon’s rise in the polls, which began in mid-February, has almost exactly mirrored Mr Hollande’s decline. The Communists’ candidate has jumped from 9% to 15%, while the Socialists’ has dropped from 32% to 28%. As a result, Mr Hollande has lost any sense of momentum.

With the clenched fists, the sea of red flags at his rallies and the singing of the "Internationale", the fiery Mr Mélenchon has managed to excite crowds, and stir passions and utopian dreams in a way that only underlines Mr Hollande’s rather staid approach. Mr Hollande can do hot-blooded on occasion: his rousing speech at Le Bourget, when he declared war on the “world of finance”, launched him as a plausible presidential candidate. But he is more often perceived as a man of moderation, the “normal” candidate to contrast with the extravagant Nicolas Sarkozy. And this hardly makes for an inspiring campaign.

But could it be that Mr Mélenchon is actually doing the passion job for him? Clémentine Autain, Mr Mélenchon’s spokeswoman, said on the radio the other day that: “We will call for a victory over Sarkozy, and we will vote for the left-wing candidate who is in the lead”. His voters are the very ones who might otherwise have abstained at this election. As it is, polling agencies predict a low turnout compared with 2007. By rallying the disillusioned on the left in the first round, and then calling on them to back Mr Hollande in the second, Mr Mélenchon might actually turn out to be an asset for the Socialist candidate.

The real question then becomes this: what price his support? The higher Mr Mélenchon’s first-round score, the stronger his hand. For now, the Socialists have signed an electoral deal only with the Greens, who under Eva Joly have dropped off the radar screen at the presidential election (latest polls give her just 1.5%).

Mr Mélenchon’s Left Front could either demand a legislative deal, ahead of parliamentary elections in June, to ensure that it can form a bloc in the next assembly. Or it might ask for policy concessions, and ministerial jobs. Given that Mr Mélenchon’s programme contains such measures as an immediate 20% rise in the minimum wage, a 100% tax rate on earnings over €360,000 and a withdrawal of France from NATO, this could lead to some pretty tense negotiations on the evening of April 22nd.
http://www.economist.com/comment/1355752
 

G.O.O.

Member
I won't vote for him and I don't think his policies would make anything better, but this policymic article is ridiculous.

"The French Newt Gingrich", yeah right.
 
"Capitalist propaganda always managed to make people think the markets' interests were humanity's interests." For too long people have been made to feel that they were some kind of drain or problem for expecting free education, free healthcare or being able to stop working when they were old and spent."

Wow, he is kinda right there.

Holy shit. Baloney idea, but I'd love to see it happen just as a social experiment. The economics student in me would have so much new research to look through.

I have always found that socialist ideas sound interesting and possible but always get tied into communism. To much power concentrated breaks that ideal and normally ends up being a type of dictatorship or totalitarian rule.

I would be fascinated to see if these ideals can exist in a democratic setting. Of course that would mean the majority would have to rule in favor of such a huge change.
 

SmokyDave

Member
"Anything above €360,000, we take it all. The tax bracket will be 100%. People say to me, that's ideological. I say too right it is. It's a vision of society. Just as we won't allow poverty in our society, we won't allow the hyper-accumulation of riches. Money should not be accumulated but circulated, invested, spent for the common good."
I'm with this dude. Let's give it a fair shake and see how it goes.
 

Reuenthal

Banned
So it seems that there are those who like his economic suggestions, does anyone also like his "a withdrawal of France from NATO" proposal?
 

Mistouze

user-friendly man-cashews
Perfect line to sum up French mentality.
LOL. That's like taking something out of one of the craziest republican candidate's mouth and saying, "yup, that sums up USA".

Thing is, he is making promises he knows he's NEVER going to be in position to keep. He's mocking the poor and the people pissed off at economy and politics for votes. And it works. Vive le populisme.
 
I like the idea of a maximum salary, but more progressive tax brackets would be better. The Netherlands has a max salary for public servants if I understand, but it's not 100% strict given that some who are employed by the state are medical professionals. They seem to make more in some cases. The regular max salary is around 190 000 euro's.

But yea, more and higher tax brackets would be better for non-public servants.
 
I was just thinking that a max salary would also require raising minimum wage to make sure that the funds that were supposed to go to CEO pay are (at least partly) diverted to the lower and middle class. The demand for every day products and semi-luxury items would skyrocket.

Edit: This assuming that there is no 100% tax but a max salary. Why would a company pay you more than they legally can anyway? The idea that they would give you 1 million and just dump 700k on the governments bank account is silly.
 
I like the idea of a maximum salary, but more progressive tax brackets would be better. The Netherlands has a max salary for public servants if I understand, but it's not 100% strict given that some who are employed by the state are medical professionals. They seem to make more in some cases. The regular max salary is around 190 000 euro's.

But yea, more and higher tax brackets would be better for non-public servants.

A top salary for public workers is completely justified. They´re working off the tax payers. A 100% tax bracket on private companies its the government taking away your property. I could maybe justify 99% as not theft but 100% is the government going beyond too far.
 

G.O.O.

Member
Not gonna happen. French populist leaders (left/right) generally know they have little chance to get elected (our mainstream media work against them anyway), most of the time they just make strong proposals and work for their ideas to spread.

Also, Mélenchon united the far-left, but didn't really make it stronger. He ate the communists alive and the small trotskists parties are about to die aswell.
 

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
This isn't actually true. Russia went from a feudal society at the time the US was already an industrialized country to competing with the US in space exploration just a few decades later.
I can't completely substantiate this claim, but Timothy Ferris argues that most of the USSR's early success in space exploration was a product of poaching many of Germany's best rocket scientists at the end of World War II. After Russia's first few triumphs, their space program stagnated in comparison to the US because their system couldn't measure up in scientific achievement (in fact, the Soviet model repressed the freedom of the sciences). Furthermore, their economic performance left a lot to be desired. Khrushchev predicted that the USSR would finally catch up to the US sometime in the 70s or 80s, but of course it collapsed instead. The poll you posted says very little about the sustainability or the efficacy of the Soviet model, especially considering two important caveats.

1) The poll came in the middle of the worst depression since the 1930s; Lithuania's unemployment rate, for example, was nearly 15% at that point. Of course the results are going to be unfavorable. You can argue all you want about capitalism's failure in its cause of the current crisis, and I would agree with you in some aspects. I think that most of the damage could've been controlled or stopped altogether with sensible policies.

2) Most of the countries you listed are only somewhat economically free; Russia in particular is still one of the most repressive economies in the world. I wouldn't call it capitalism in the sense that there are free markets.

Lastly, I don't know if socialism is inevitable, because I don't see how humanity will ever solve the limitation of resources. At least Adam Smith based his ideas of a less controlled economic system on his observations of human nature; and human nature, for the foreseeable future, isn't going to change. Its circumstances would have to drastically.
 

Slayven

Member
I can't completely substantiate this claim, but Timothy Ferris argues that most of the USSR's early success in space exploration was a product of poaching many of Germany's best rocket scientists at the end of World War II. After Russia's first few triumphs, their space program stagnated in comparison to the US because their system couldn't measure up in scientific achievement (in fact, the Soviet model repressed the freedom of the sciences). Furthermore, their economic performance left a lot to be desired. Khrushchev predicted that the USSR would finally catch up to the US sometime in the 70s or 80s, but of course it collapsed instead. The poll you posted says very little about the sustainability or the efficacy of the Soviet model, especially considering two important caveats.

I watched a doucmentry not long ago about the early days of the Soviet space program. They talked with a few of the scientist there, the scientists talked about how they were literally under the gun in some cases and also having to fake results to make some officials look good during walkthroughs.
 
D

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member
Can't say I agree with his ideology, but I do love a politician that doesn't fuck around and pander.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom